Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
[Alix Genter] was surprised later when the store owner called her up to inform her that the store wouldn't be working with her.
"She said she wouldn't work with me because I'm gay," the woman told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "She also said that I came from a nice Jewish family, and that it was a shame I was gay. She said, 'There's right, and there's wrong. And this is wrong.' "
A voicemail by the store owner also said that the wedding was "illegal" and "we do not participate in any illegal actions."
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^][v]#195,049
I heard about that. What were they thinking?
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,054
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
The Yelp reviews are kind of interesting -- a number of people seem to think the store should have the right to decide their clientele, despite what NJ state law may say.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,057
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
They probably should have a right to do so. But, they then have to deal with the fallback.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,063
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Really? That's very Jim Crow.
I don't think they should have that right at all. Places that are open to the public simply shouldn't be allowed to discriminate IMO. If they want the "right" to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation, they shouldn't advertise, have a storefront, etc. I simply don't think people should be humiliated like this because they're gay, black, female, etc.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,068
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Well, they have all female and all male gyms and health clubs.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,072
And this is why America pisses me off sometimes. No offence, OP.
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
That's not really the same thing.
Triptych !LightPenis joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,073
They probably have the right to pick who they serve, but that was still a dick move.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,075
@195,068 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Well, some of those have been challenged legally, but it hasn't really stuck. Quite different in that there is a decent reason why the "discrimination" is in place (after all, they allow male/female bathrooms too).
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,079
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Who decides on what is a decent reason?
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,080
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Courts, legislatures, society in general. Most people have, thankfully, moved past homophobia -- doubt this would have even made the news a decade or two ago.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,082
@195,075 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
There really is no reason for discriminating and segregating the bahtrooms. Greek society never had a problem with it.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#195,087
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#195,320
Store owner would have gone to prison for doing that here.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#195,323
@previous (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
She could be in trouble for doing it here; in NJ this is illegal. I kind of doubt anything would happen criminally, but civil suit is likely imo.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#195,327
@195,320 (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
Not likely, the prisons are full because of the riots at the moment. But yeah this would have kicked up a mild shitstorm over here.
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#195,344
> the prisons are full because of the riots at the moment.
Nah, there's space enough for something like this, especially if it had kicked up enough of a shitstorm in the tabloids. Besides, most of the rioters got put in Cat C. Some of the bad ones went into Cat B - the guy who burned down Selfridges in Manchester is lounging in segregation right now in a cat B. He complains constantly apparently. I may or may not have grassed him up
I think that if she was going to be sentenced to prison it would be a cat D, but tbh no I think of it it would just be a fine. They only fined that B&B woman who didn't let those 2 gay men stay.